The Obamanation
 

This is a cool interactive map which shows the associations of Obama and people on capitol hill and in his new administration. Pretty neat.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a23bf7b4-e...0779fd2ac.html

Neat chart on that site merc.
Here is the text for the lazy peeps... (like me)

Ugggg, that was a huge part of Clinton's administration and a huge source of problems.

Yeah..one in particular. lol

You are right, but I really wasn't thinking about that one. I was thinking more about some of the stories that were in a book called "Unlimited Access" by the man who was in charge of the security and background checks in the White House.

Yeah I know.

I was just cracking a funny. ;)
(I hope no one notices though. I'd hate word to get out that I actually do have a sense of humour after all)

Don't worry - We all know better, Ali.

:lol:

I liked this euphemism:

Dumb-ass god-botherers from the sticks, roughly. :lol:

Dick Morris

The Obama presidency: Here comes socialism
By Dick Morris
Posted: 01/20/09 06:12 PM [ET]
2009-2010 will rank with 1913-14, 1933-36, 1964-65 and 1981-82 as years that will permanently change our government, politics and lives. Just as the stars were aligned for Wilson, Roosevelt, Johnson and Reagan, they are aligned for Obama. Simply put, we enter his administration as free-enterprise, market-dominated, laissez-faire America. We will shortly become like Germany, France, the United Kingdom, or Sweden — a socialist democracy in which the government dominates the economy, determines private-sector priorities and offers a vastly expanded range of services to many more people at much higher taxes.


Obama will accomplish his agenda of “reform” under the rubric of “recovery.” Using the electoral mandate bestowed on a Democratic Congress by restless voters and the economic power given his administration by terrified Americans, he will change our country fundamentally in the name of lifting the depression. His stimulus packages won’t do much to shorten the downturn — although they will make it less painful — but they will do a great deal to change our nation.


In implementing his agenda, Barack Obama will emulate the example of Franklin D. Roosevelt. (Not the liberal mythology of the New Deal, but the actuality of what it accomplished.) When FDR took office, he was enormously successful in averting a total collapse of the banking system and the economy. But his New Deal measures only succeeded in lowering the unemployment rate from 23 percent in 1933, when he took office, to 13 percent in the summer of 1937. It never went lower. And his policies of over-regulation generated such business uncertainty that they triggered a second-term recession. Unemployment in 1938 rose to 17 percent and, in 1940, on the verge of the war-driven recovery, stood at 15 percent. (These data and the real story of Hoover’s and Roosevelt’s missteps, uncolored by ideology, are available in The Forgotten Man by Amity Shlaes, copyright 2007.)


But in the name of a largely unsuccessful effort to end the Depression, Roosevelt passed crucial and permanent reforms that have dominated our lives ever since, including Social Security, the creation of the Securities and Exchange Commission, unionization under the Wagner Act, the federal minimum wage and a host of other fundamental changes.


Obama’s record will be similar, although less wise and more destructive. He will begin by passing every program for which liberals have lusted for decades, from alternative-energy sources to school renovations, infrastructure repairs and technology enhancements. These are all good programs, but they normally would be stretched out for years. But freed of any constraint on the deficit — indeed, empowered by a mandate to raise it as high as possible — Obama will do them all rather quickly.


But it is not his spending that will transform our political system, it is his tax and welfare policies. In the name of short-term stimulus, he will give every American family (who makes less than $200,000) a welfare check of $1,000 euphemistically called a refundable tax credit. And he will so sharply cut taxes on the middle class and the poor that the number of Americans who pay no federal income tax will rise from the current one-third of all households to more than half. In the process, he will create a permanent electoral majority that does not pay taxes, but counts on ever-expanding welfare checks from the government. The dependency on the dole, formerly limited in pre-Clinton days to 14 million women and children on Aid to Families with Dependent Children, will now grow to a clear majority of the American population.


Will he raise taxes? Why should he? With a congressional mandate to run the deficit up as high as need be, there is no reason to raise taxes now and risk aggravating the depression. Instead, Obama will follow the opposite of the Reagan strategy. Reagan cut taxes and increased the deficit so that liberals could not increase spending. Obama will raise spending and increase the deficit so that conservatives cannot cut taxes. And, when the economy is restored, he will raise taxes with impunity, since the only people who will have to pay them would be rich Republicans.


In the name of stabilizing the banking system, Obama will nationalize it. Using Troubled Asset Relief Program funds to write generous checks to needy financial institutions, his administration will demand preferred stock in exchange. Preferred stock gets dividends before common stockholders do. With the massive debt these companies will owe to the government, they will only be able to afford dividends for preferred stockholders — the government, not private investors. So who will buy common stock? And the government will demand that its bills be paid before any profits that might materialize are reinvested in the financial institution, so how will the value of the stocks ever grow? Devoid of private investors, these institutions will fall ever more under government control.


Obama will begin the process by limiting executive compensation. Then he will urge restructuring and lowering of home mortgages in danger of default (as the feds have already done with Citibank).

Then will come guidance on the loans to make and government instructions on the types of enterprises to favor. God grant that some Blagojevich type is not in charge of the program, using his power to line his pockets. The United States will find itself with an economic system comparable to that of Japan, where the all-powerful bureaucracy at MITI (Ministry of International Trade and Industry) manages the economy, often making mistakes like giving mainframe computers priority over the development of laptops.


But it is the healthcare system that will experience the most dramatic and traumatic of changes. The current debate between erecting a Medicare-like governmental single payer or channeling coverage through private insurance misses the essential point. Without a lot more doctors, nurses, clinics, equipment and hospital beds, health resources will be strained to the breaking point. The people and equipment that now serve 250 million Americans and largely neglect all but the emergency needs of the other 50 million will now have to serve everyone. And, as government imposes ever more Draconian price controls and income limits on doctors, the supply of practitioners and equipment will decline as the demand escalates. Price increases will be out of the question, so the government will impose healthcare rationing, denying the older and sicker among us the care they need and even barring them from paying for it themselves. (Rationing based on income and price will be seen as immoral.)


And Obama will move to change permanently the partisan balance in America. He will move quickly to legalize all those who have been in America for five years, albeit illegally, and to smooth their paths to citizenship and voting. He will weaken border controls in an attempt to hike the Latino vote as high as he can in order to make red states like Texas into blue states like California. By the time he is finished, Latinos and African-Americans will cast a combined 30 percent of the vote. If they go by top-heavy margins for the Democrats, as they did in 2008, it will assure Democratic domination (until they move up the economic ladder and become good Republicans).


And he will enact the check-off card system for determining labor union representation, repealing the secret ballot in union elections. The result will be to raise the proportion of the labor force in unions up to the high teens from the current level of about 12 percent.


Finally, he will use the expansive powers of the Federal Communications Commission to impose “local” control and ownership of radio stations and to impose the “fairness doctrine” on talk radio. The effect will be to drive talk radio to the Internet, fundamentally change its economics, and retard its growth for years hence.


But none of these changes will cure the depression. It will end when the private sector works through the high debt levels that triggered the collapse in the first place. And, then, the large stimulus package deficits will likely lead to rapid inflation, probably necessitating a second recession to cure it.


So Obama’s name will be mud by 2012 and probably by 2010 as well. And the Republican Party will make big gains and regain much of its lost power.


But it will be too late to reverse the socialism of much of the economy, the demographic change in the electorate, the rationing of healthcare by the government, the surge of unionization and the crippling of talk radio.



Morris, a former adviser to Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and President Bill Clinton, is the author of Outrage.

http://thehill.com/dick-morris/the-o...009-01-20.html

BEWARE OBAMA’S TROJAN HORSE
By Dick Morris And Eileen McGann 01.22.2009 Now that Obama is the president, fasten your seat belts. During his first year in office, and particularly during his first hundred days, we are about to witness the most prodigious output of legislation since 1981-2 (under Reagan), 1964-5 (under Johnson), and 1933-36 (under Roosevelt). The combination of top heavy Democratic majorities in Congress and a mood of public fear bordering on panic over the financial crisis and the looming depression will speed his legislation through a compliant Senate and House.

We will enter his Administration as the United States, buoyed by an aggressive free market economy. We will exit his first year - and even the first hundred days - as France, burdened with massive government regulation, a vast public sector, and permanent middle class entitlements. And Obama will take care to arrange things so that massive and permanent political change accompanies his and protects his legislative achievements in the future.


He will call this radical change a stimulus package. He will dress up a generation of liberal priorities as necessary steps to fight the economic crisis. His programs and policies won’t do much to end the depression. It will end only after the massive burden of debt is lifted from the shoulders of American and foreign households and companies, a process which will take years. At most, his stimulus will act as methadone while we withdraw from our debt addiction, mitigating the pain, smoothing over the trauma, and soothing our system.

But Obama’s strategy is to hide inside the Trojan Horse of stimulus an army of radical measures to change America permanently.

The most pernicious of his proposals will be the massive Make Work Pay refundable tax credit. Dressed up as a tax cut, it will be a national welfare program, guaranteeing a majority of American households an annual check to “refund” taxes they never paid. And it will eliminate the need for about 20% of American households to pay income taxes, lifting the proportion that need not do so to a majority of the voting population. Unlike the Bush stimulus checks, this new program will be a permanent entitlement, a part of our budget that can only go up and never down. Politically, it will transform a majority of Americans from taxpayers, anxious to hold down government spending, into tax eaters, eager to reap new benefits.

http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/2009/...orse/#more-531

That's a pretty bleak outlook.

I think it's bleak if you don't like the idea of safety nets and have no faith in your governments ability to manage them. On the other hand, you could view it as a positive step towards caring for those less fortunate or in situations that're sometimes hard to get out of.

That is a bad idea - The fairness doctrine is anything but fair.

Insomuch as anything our government ever does is permanent. It will not automatically expire, but it can be gotten rid of just as easily as it is implemented.

Has a great potential to create a more dependent society. I'm ok with giving people a hand, but I don't like the idea of a handout. That can further the entitlement mentality.

ding ding ding! Bang on the money.

They never have been able to manage them so what makes you think we should suddenly have faith in their ability to do so now? No, I see it as a further step towards a socialist european model.

Just because a society develops more of a social conciousness doesn't mean they're going to turn into socialists over night...or at all.

I don't think our society has been without a social consciousness. Our government has just not considered throwing money at social issues until recently.

I didn't say it had. In fact, my exact wording was 'more of a social conciousness'. (pardon the spelling error)

I know this argument has been had here many many times, but the level of assistance the govt provides citizens in Australia and the UK is much higher on average than that of the US and yet we're no closer to communism than you are. We still have massive social issues though, and some people think the govt should give more here...others think less.

Personally I think the balance is about right atm for us although it sux that our family benefits nothing at all from government assistance at all. Being what's considered high middle income earners, we dip out from both sides. We don't get the tax breaks high earners manage, but we get none of the assistance from various schemes the government offers. I don't think we suffer because of it, but it annoys me that Dazza works so hard and financially we're really not much better off than people who earn $30k less.

True. You are more a more taxed burdened society and society is more dependent on government handouts. Which creates an environment of dependence. No?

Not exactly. It means if you need help it's there. Most people are not dependant on the government, but there are programs available for those who need help.

We are in no way dependant on the govt ourselves as i mentioned. Nor is my father who happens to be pretty annoyed with the govt atm. He's recently retired, owns property, has never had to accept help from the govt and is self funded as a retiree (not through superannuation which is like your 401k accounts from what I can tell), and yet he just wanted a public transport card so he can get half price fares and do some train trips, but he's not eligible because he is 'too wealthy'. You should hear him grumbling about it! lol I don't think he should care so much though. He doesn't need it, but there are plenty who do. I get his point, but seriously, he's created exactly the life he wanted for himself and no one can take it away from him now. That's better than needing to rely on the govt in my view.

Dick Morris, humph.

First of all, we have not had "free-enterprise, market-dominated, laissez-faire" capitalism for a long time. What we have is socialist corporatism. We have been bailing out rich corporations for decades. About every 10 years or so, some big catastrophe happens, and they get bailed out.

Many rich corporations are completely subsidized by the government. They get government funding to build things (like sports stadiums), they get it for their employees health care (WalMart), they get it for R&D (pharmaceuticals). But, WE do not share in their profits, even though WE subsidized them. That is not capitalism, so please, stop insulting people by claiming it is.

In addition, all those really smart CEOs and Wall Street people artificially manipulate the market to make money. Then we the people pay when their houses built of cards come falling down. If you or I did that, we would be thrown in prison for fraud. That is what happened with the housing market, that is what with energy prices and blackouts caused by Enron, that is what happened with gas prices last year, and who knows what else all those so called "smart people" have done that will ultimately cause damage to the rest of us, while they luxuriate under their golden parachutes, and tell us we are too dumb to understand what happened. (Frankly, I am wondering if THEY know what the hell they are doing. and we have left these people in charge? *scratches head*)

Wall Street and deregulation caused all this mess. But conservatives answer to everything is to lower taxes on rich corporations and the very top wealthy elite. Hmmmm, they fucked up royally, so let's give them even more money and allow them to keep running things. But... it doesn't work. We have tried it. Some big corporations actually pay no taxes. And they hide their profits offshore, so they don't pay taxes on that. Conservatives like to complain about "tax and spend" democrats, but republicans are addicted now to "lower taxes and spend" philosophy. They spend more, but tax less. So where are we supposed to get the money to pay for all that spending? At least democrats want to tax people who can afford it so people who can barely scrape by might be able to have a few more dollars in their pocket.

Another thing, rich people (you know, really rich people) are not going to spend any more than they do otherwise if you let them keep more of their money. They just won't. The middle class drives the economy. We have been doing trickle down economics for 40 years, and it doesn't work. Do you realize that now, the top 300 people in this country have more wealth than the rest put together? It's insane. Why does any one person need to have 60 billion dollars? That money would be better spent if it was in circulation. Our country is strongest when we have a large middle class, but our middle class is shrinking, because so many good jobs have gone bye bye. Now we are losing high paying engineering jobs as well. I have an idea, maybe we should outsource all those CEO and executive jobs instead, and keep the workforce jobs. Imagine how much money we could save, and how many people we could employ, if we did that.

We need to support small business. Yes, ther are big corporations that employee lots of people, but the bigger they get, the harder they fall. We have allowed some industries to become so big that they really control us. Like media. Congress keeps raising the limits on how many newspapers, radio stations, and TV stations any one person can own. That is dangerous. Seriously. Do you honestly think it is healthy for only a few voices to have control over what we hear and see? I don't. It limits us. And in the same vein, allowing one company to diversify to where it limits competition, that isn't healthy either. They get too much power. And, in the process, not only does it limit competition, it also lowers standards (look at Microsoft).

Regarding health care. Republicans have been on TV whining that we need to cut taxes for corporations so they can compete globally, because other countries have lower corporate taxes. Well, other countries also have government-sponsored health care, and that is huge cost to corporations here. But, republicans don't want to give government-sponsored health care to our people either. So, give us the health care, and maybe we would be more ammenable to lowering corporate taxes. But only when corporations are taxed properly. (you know, that offshore thing again, and other ways corporations get away with not paying taxes, and being subsidized in almost every way imaginable. I mean really, if taxpayer dollars are paying for that sports complex, they should share in the profits.)

Health care costs are out of control. I notice the costs have gone up astronomically, because of ADVERTISING. How is it not drug pushing if a pharmaceutical company advertises its drugs on tv? Maybe we really DO need to take control of everything, from banks to pharmaceutical cos, because honestly, in the long run, it would probably be more beneficial to society.

About Obama, he actually wants to go through the budget and cut waste. If it doesn't work, he has pledged to get rid of it, or make it more efficient. The spending he wants to do will create jobs in the short term, and are investments for the future in the long term. Our infrastructure is crumbling, and weak regulation of certain industries is costing us money, and damaging the environment. Not to mention our addiction to oil. Pumping money into infrastucture and green technology will create jobs now and is long term investment for our country. And putting reasonable regulations on business is a good thing.

Let's at least give the man a chance. He has been in office for a week. Let's give him some time. I don't like everything he's doing either, and I'm skeptical of some of it. But I also have hope. He's intelligent, and thoughtful, and he LISTENS. He has already taken some HUGE steps that seem very promising. It took 8 years of Bush to get here. It will take time and thought to get out of it.

And ftr, why is "socialism" such a bad thing? People in Europe and other countries seem to like it pretty well.

One last thought (I know this is long, I'm not usually this loquacious. :D), I reeeally think we need repeal most of the drug laws. Espeically with regard to plants, like weed and mushrooms. I read the other day that pot is now the most profitable drug in the US. If we repealed the laws, and taxed it, imagine all the money we could bring in. Plus, it would start a whole new industry, and combat crime at the same time. If people could grow their own, or become a grower for profit, there would be no more drug wars, or illegal gangs to worry about. Of course, I also think prostitution should be legal, for many of the same reasons, and more, but that is another thread. ;)

I had to scroll up and doublecheck who the poster was on that one.

heehee, I am worshipping sugarpop right now!

She is one of my best friends and I love her to death. If I get divorced I am going to marry her. But we could never discuss politics before we had sex. :D

You forgot the walking on water part but I'm sure it was an innocent mistake

oh, well, I didn't want to brag, but I do possess that talent...

Hollow victory: Republicans deliver slap in the face to Barack Obama
By: Toby Harnden at Jan 29, 2009

President Barack Obama got the $825 (or $1.2 trillion over a decade) stimulus package through the House of Representatives but the 244 to 188 vote is a hollow victory indeed. Without a single Republican voting for the bill, his high-profile visit to Capitol Hill on Tuesday came to exactly naught - at least on the House side.

Obama vowed to change Washington and usher in a new post-partisan era. The the mood music and optics were pitch perfect as he trekked up to the Hill. Republicans praised his gesture, welcomed his sincere demeanour and appreciated his willingness to listen.

Problem was, he wanted only to listen and did not want to act on what Republicans said. When he was asked if he would re-structure the package to include more tax cuts, he reportedly responded: "Feel free to whack me over the head because I probably will not compromise on that part."

He apparently added: " I understand that and I will watch you on Fox News and feel bad about myself."

That's fine. No doubt Obama will indeed get beaten up on Fox News. But his failure to get even the squishiest moderate Republican - including the 11 entertained in the White House by Rahm Emanuel last night - to back him is not merely a big score for Rep Eric Cantor, Republican Whip, and the rest of the GOP leadership.

It also shows that it is not just Fox, the loony Right or Rush Limbaugh - or however else you might want to characterise the opposition in order to marginalise it - who had grave misgivings about the content of the bill.

The Democratic leadership on Capitol Hill badly miscalculated by treating the bill as a victor's charter. Not that it seemed to bother Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, who grinned from ear to ear as she announced the result of the vote.

Obama said yesterday he did not feel he had ownership of the bill. Be that as it may, if it goes through the Senate in similar fashion and is signed into law then - the efforts of Pelosio and Senator Harry Reid notwithstanding - it will be his and his alone.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/toby_ha...o_barack_obama

Great reporting. Apparently, he said "I am the grand black poobah now, and you will follow my every whim."

Reportedly, he then smacked everyone with a hickory stick.

lol...just sayin' ;)

I read the same things in several other papers, I think it does not bode well for all the bipartisan BS that has been spouted. So far this looks a lot different than the "stimulus plan" it was originally sold as. There is a lot spending in this bill, but not a lot of stimulation/job creation. Still, I'll hope for the best.

The Senate will probably create a bill they can all live with, but the Repub Reps wanted to look tough first, so that it appears he caved when in fact he offered them a lot of what they wanted right from the start.

Stimulus bill moves to Senate
I'd like to more on this, I thought they were giving to the middle class not making them pay more.

thats a lot of spending with a lot less tax relief.

I think there are many worthy causes where this money is going, but again, it seems as though this is a spending package not a stimulus package. The more I see the less I can determine where exactly the job creation is coming from.

OMFG - are they seriously calling that job creation? That is frightening.

Great, but excuse me Mr. Senator, We're in a fucking crisis right? Isn't this supposed to CREATE JOBS & get the economy going?

Whoop die flocking doo - 200 million outta 800+ Billion is relatively nothing. (I can't even comprehend what planet these people are from - they're all insane.)

A 40-Year Wish List
You won't believe what's in that stimulus bill.

So far, I contend that this is not a stimulus plan at all. This is simply spending money we already don't have.

It is a liberal wish list by the Democrats in Congress being fulfilled by a willing President.

hummph. He met with republicans before he met with his own party. He made concessions to them in the bill... twice, before it was written, and it was adjusted after they met and discussed it. They led Obama to believe if he gave them certain things, they would get behind him. Lots of tax cuts (over a third of the bill is tax cuts), which is all republicans ever want. I hope all those concessions get taken out, so we can have more for infrastructure.

And why should we listen to House Republicans anyway? Because they reeealy put the brakes on spending when they were in charge. They have nothing to offer but failed policies. Obama and democrats won by landslide. Republicans really should get over it and learn how to play with others.

First of all, I haven't seen the bill, so I don't know exactly what's in there. But a lot of things being mentioned will create jobs, or cut money. the 200 million for contraceptions, well, it's less expensive than paying for unwanted children.

Some of the things mentioned, there was no mention of how the money would be used. for instance, the money for Amtrak could create jobs, depending on what it's for and how it's spent. R&D funds jobs, and also creates technology (or whatever) for the future. the digital TV coupons, they've already been giving those away, for months. I suppose IF they are forcing everyone to have digital TV, they should provide a way for people to view it who don't have digital televisions, satellite or cable. etc etc etc. I'm not saying there is no reason to be skeptical, but he has promised to show us exactly where the money is going. I am choosing to give him the benefit of the doubt. He's a very intelligent guy. I don't think he wants to fail.

We the details are coming out of Congress now and it is quite obvious this is something other than pure job creation. It includes many things that have nothing to do with jobs are were included on bills the Dems tried to pass before. With a Obamastamp they may have a better chance. It is a sham and the Demoncrats will have to explain it, not Obama.

David Brookes on what is wrong with this bill.

First, the stimulus should be timely. The money should go out “almost immediately.” Second, it should be targeted. It should help low- and middle-income people. Third, it should be temporary. Stimulus measures should not raise the deficits “beyond a short horizon of a year or at most two.”

The Democrats need to remember that this is supposed to be a stimulus package. As a Head Start teacher, I want a well considered HS funding bill. They have time to do that.

Economists Debate: Diverse Perspectives on Stimulus

Outstanding article with some pros and cons from some of the best economists.

There are a lot of mixed opinions, but overall they do not seem very positive.

An opinion piece that says what a lot of economists are saying.

Depressing economics

Willem Buiter is worried:

I used to be optimistic about the capacity of our political leaders and central bankers to avoid the policy mistakes that could turn the current global recession into a deep and lasting global depression. Now I’m not so sure.

I share his fears, though not in all details. Protectionism, I’d argue, is less of a danger — both in terms of whether it will actually happen and in terms of how bad it would be if it does — than Willem thinks. But the capacity of our leaders and central bankers to avoid depression-era policy mistakes — and, I’d add, the capacity of our economists to avoid falling into depression-era fallacies — is proving far less than I’d hoped.

In the United States, the Republican party remains committed to a belief in that old tax-cut magic, with no willingness to rethink its doctrine in the face of catastrophe. In Europe, the ECB is basically operating on the principle that unorthodox policy would be very hard, so we must assume that no such policy is needed. And so on.

And economists, who should be helping introduce some clarity, are on the whole making things murkier. I had thought that the lessons of the Depression would help guide us through this crisis; but it turns out that a large part of the profession knows nothing about those lessons, and is peddling fallacies exploded three generations ago as if they were profound new insights.

So yes, we can have another depression — because those who refuse to learn from history may be condemned to repeat it.

Paul Krugman
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/200...ing-economics/

As long as our leaders keep telling us that this is going to last for years, it will. As long as they keep talking our situation down, nothing will change.

Sounds sort of like Jessie Jackoffson telling the masses how we have to keep the people down.

So maybe if they kept saying "the fundamentals of the economy are strong" a la John McCain, they could have averted the whole mess. :p

Cmon Sugah - I think you know what I mean. Thats a cheapshot, I expect more from you.

yea yea, well I thought I needed to lighten up a little. ;)

I've had my concerns, but I'm beginning to wonder how much of a 's problem Pelosi is really gonna be for Obama. I think that he is genuine in his desire to do what is right, but after four appointees with tax issues, this has not been a great start. He is getting some things done and seems to be trying. Doesn't he have these appointees checked out beforehand? I mean seriously - WTF? Did these people think no one would notice or find out about prior problems? This makes him look naive.

Enter Nancy Pelosi -

Well isn't that interesting, She "promised to be more fiscally responsible"
Not with this bill - doesn't this thing "heap mountains of debt on our children and grandchildren." The exact thing she said we couldn't do?


From Time
I find this very interesting - there seems to be a power struggle taking place here.

No doubt. In the end I expect both of the Demoncrats, Pelosi and Reid, to want to "Jessie Jackson" him and want to cut his balls off over his ability to get things done. I am cautiously optimistic for him, not so much for Pelosi and Reid.

I have no idea what wanting to "Jessie Jackson" him means and I really dont want to know.

I dont think the minor differences between Obama and the Congressional Democrats are all that dramatic. It comes with being the "big tent" party and having to be responsive to a diversity of views and constituents...from the blue dogs to the leftists. Its the process of feeling each other out and setting boundaries. Pelosi and Reid know who is in charge.

The so-called "power struggle" is more a creation of the right to take attention away from their own struggles in attempting to placate their base and appeal to the broader national constituency that they have lost in recent years and who want change in both tone and policy.

I was amused by a Repubican Congressman from Texas who suggested the Republicans need to understand and consider "insurgency" as a response strategy to Pelosi...and using the Taliban as a model before an aid shut him up..:mad2:

Sessions: GOP Insugency "May Be Required"

That will play well with the swing voters!

Great so why can't they get a fucking thing done! Really? The Demoncrats own this. They are in charge. If this fails it is their fault.

Why can't they get a fucking thing done? Perhaps, because they have been debating the stimulus package for all of two weeks. Damn, why are you in such a fucking hurry to declare "no change" or "failure" before even giving them a chance...perhaps because that is what you want to see?

I would prefer that they make the package as good as possible rather than do it as quickly as possible within a reasonably expeditious time frame.

The one significant difference in what we are seeing with the Democrats controlling both the Congress and the White House....no quick rubber stamp of the administration's wishes by the Congress on what is likely to be the most significant action of the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress over the next four years.

Would the country have been better off if there had been more debate and less rush to rubber-stamping by the Republican majority at the time (and yes, a minority of Democrats as well) of Bush's wishes on his most significant "achievements" (ie, $multi-billion tax cuts targeted to the top taxpayers, the Patriot Act, the Iraq War)? I think so.

In the end, as I said, I think those differences between Obama and the Congressional leaders are not that significant. Obama will get most of what he wants, much of the Congressional pork will be removed, bi-partisan provisions (ie more targeted tax cuts) will be added in an attempt to respond to the Republican wishes..... and those Congressional Republicans can choose to join or oppose.

And as you say, and I agree, if it fails, the Democrats will be responsible and the voters will decide in a few years if they want want to continue down that road.

And if they succeed, they will also be responsible and it will cement their approval by the public and perhaps even result in a larger majority in Congress for an even longer period of time than a typical party cycle change....something that has the Republicans shitting in their pants.

They can't get anything done, because they need at least two republican votes. But republicans want to water down the spending (which HELLO! that's exactly what we NEED!) and load it down with tax cuts, which is exactly what we DON'T need. Look at what Paul Krugman had to say this morning...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/op...06krugman.html

I wish they'd let the Republicans actually filibuster, instead of pretending that a bill needs 60 votes to pass.

Yeah, it's weird. A filibuster will be wildly unpopular with the country, and the Republicans would back down almost immediately and cave. I guess the Democrats are trying the bipartisan approach first before giving the Republicans enough rope to hang themselves. I'm not sure if they are being nice, or stupid.

I still think this situation has a lot to do with Obama and his wanting to be bipartisan and put an end to "business as usual in DC" versus Pelosi trying to flex her muscles. The R's, depending on your perspective, seem to be either trying to get what they think will work into this while cutting the pork or are just dickin around trying to play the spoilers.
It seems to me that if the pork got removed as well as the nice stuff that doesn't belong in a stimulus bill, this would pass in an instant. Thats the fault of both sides.

That appears to be what is happening.

Politicians of both parties are creatures of habit. Its not easy for them to change how they act.

In the House, they are, and have always been, highly partisan. In the Senate, they like to talk alot and debate for days, then find some level of consensus that wont please all, but would often ensure passage of legislation.

Much of the House inserted pork and popular non-stimulus related programs are being removed in the Senate (with Obama's support) to the tune of $!00 billion less then they started with.

It should pass by next week, but with little bi-partisan support, perhaps a handful of Republicans. Most Rs will dig in their heals and not support a bill that, in their ideological belief, contains too much spending and not enough tax cuts.

That works for me!

I think you hit the nail on the head there. Well done.

I think they should let them fillibuster too.

McCain wrote a bill that was almost completely tax cuts. Every republican voted for it. WTF are they THINKING? TAX CUTS are not going to help this situation. Getting a tax break will do NOTHING for people who are out of work. Buncha fucking wankers. We are losing jobs at an enormous rate. The longer we put this off, the worse it will get, the longer it will last, and it will be much more difficult to dig ourselves out of it. What the fuck don't they get about that? :mad2: (sorry for the potty mouth, but I'm PISSED OFF.